Air system
 

The latest change to the Joint Helicopter Command Flying Order Book sees all references to ‘aircraft’ replaced with ‘air system’. Anyone got any ideas why?

I believe the term "air system" is being applied across the board as it has been deemed to more accurately reflect the way UAV/UCAV/UAS developments operate now and in the not too distant future. Buzzword bingo as normal, probably a promotion or two out of it as well.

Because everyone’s gone anally retentive and believe that changing simple wording for corporate buzz words are good for their careers instead of concentrating of what really matters and getting rid of this bull****.

sorry if I couldn’t flower that up a bit with words that will leave half of the population either guessing or decrying.

You probably realise by now i am not a air mass velocity converter Or a fan…

The excrement has impacted the rotary oscillator.

I guess that in my previous life, I would be described as an "Aerial vehicle tri-dimensional direction and velocity adjuster". I prefer the old, and simpler, term "pilot".

Surely the flying order book should now be the air systems controller suggestions literature, after all you are not flying a UAV desk etc.

The term has been around and in use for quite a while now, and certainly in widespread use around the DE&S area. As FILO points out, it is intended to be all inclusive, and certainly works quite well for UAV/RPAS etc.

I guess for some contributors out there in the ‘real world’, where they deal with things not much more complex than a Cessna, then change can be difficult to deal with. Meanwhile the rest of us get on with dealing with some fairly complex military air systems.

Hmm was that aimed at me because strangely enough I’m licensed on quite a lot covering ex military types and have and do work on the odd ones that fly post Service. We were one of the first to import ex Estonian military Jets post the break up of the Soviet Union.
Fairly complex is nothing in the civilian world, at the end of the day the principals and systems are exactly the same.

It’s part of the governments diversity and gender recognition initiative. From now on it will be LGBTQ+AS

The Air System is what brings the fresh air to the cockpit, and a different system takes the metering air to the FCU.

Buzzwords. Dogs, barking, biting, fences for the keeping out of.

Like 'airframe', 'air vehicle' and 'aircraft', 'air system' is appropriate when used in the correct context. But to replace all instances of 'aircraft' with 'air system' would be to show a worrying lack of understanding, akin to inappropriate use of 'fault' and 'defect'. What aircrew really need to know is that the people responsible for each are doing their jobs correctly. Initially, and in practice, getting it wrong means there ain't enough funding. Look at it positively. This could be an attempt to return to making correct materiel and financial provision, which is a Service HQ function. If only they knew it.

The rot set in when my Nav friends were deemed: 'Directional Consultants'.
It started as a bar room joke but subsequently acquired some traction.
I frequently have trouble with the current 'In' or 'Out' words but continue to rely, when referring to those east or south of Suez as: Citizens of the new Commonwealth and Emergent nations. I think I get away with it because the Woke community don't have a clue what I'm on about (nor on many other issues as well!!).

Old Duffer

Isn’t the correct word for ‘Air System’ Pneumatics?

WELCOME TO THE "BUILD BACK BETTER"

Haven't the MAA regs referred to Air Systems for the last 5 years or so? Perhaps your FOB has been somewhat out of date for a while? ;)

Yes, and it was BS then too! How many have replied to “what do you do?” with “I fly air systems”! Or, “how many air systems on the program Chief?”, “around 6 if you’ll take the air system with limits, Sir”, “ok Chief, we’ll be stepping for our air systems in about an hour”. It just doesn’t happen and it kind of shows how out of touch the MAA are at times…

The next one from the RAF I hear is that “Airman” is to become “Aviator” due to some fool thinking that “Airman” is male - when it isn’t, like the noun “human”, which is neuter and also the word “man” in Old English meaning ‘person’. So now if we do adopt “Aviator” we will knowingly adopt a male noun, as the female version is “Aviatrix”. Then of course the definition of an “Aviator/Aviatrix” in the dictionary is ‘someone who flies or operates an aircraft’ so 90% of the RAF’s so-called potential “Aviators” don’t fit that either. You couldn’t make some of this up! :ugh:

Surely any CRAFT that flies in the AIR (atmosphere) is an AIRCRAFT, manned or not.

Well, I’ve heard nothing yet to persuade me that this change was necessary or even sensible. PJG, I’m with you! ‘Aircraft’ has worked well enough for the last hundred or more years….if it ain’t broke….

"It's an AEROPLANE, Mr. Bader"